Makiha v Police

[2013] NZHC 572

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2013-470-4 [2013] NZHC 572

BETWEEN  HENRY SOLOMON MAKIHA Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:         25 March 2013

Counsel:         Appellant in person

RW Jenson for Respondent

Judgment:      25 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 25 March 2013 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SOLICITORS

Ronayne Hollister-Jones Lellman (Tauranga) for Respondent

(Copy to Appellant in person)

MAKIHA V POLICE HC ROT CRI-2013-470-4 [25 March 2013]

[1]      This  appeal  against  conviction  and  sentence  was  called  this  morning. Mr Makiha appeared to represent himself, as he did at the trial which took place in the District Court at Tauranga on 18 February 2013.

[2]      The trial concerned a charge of intentionally obstructing a constable acting in the execution of his duty.[1]    The charge arose from a situation in which a vehicle registered in the name of Mr Makiha’s wife was seized in consequence of a warrant for outstanding unpaid fines.  Mr Makiha, when the vehicle was finally located, was sitting in it and was not prepared to co-operate with the bailiff.  Police were present to ensure that the peace was kept.

[1] Mr Makiha pointed out, correctly, that the constable concerned is female and so the pronoun is incorrect. However, that is of no legal moment

[3]      Judge CJ Harding, in an oral judgment delivered immediately after the trial, summarised the factual situation as follows:[2]

Nonetheless, both the bailiff and the police tried over a time which I am satisfied, was of the order of an hour, to persuade Mr Makiha to release the vehicle without difficulty.  For a substantial part of that time, Mr Makiha put himself inside the vehicle and locked it, he would not come out and he was not interested in discussing matters.  He was repeatedly warned by both the bailiff and by Constable Inglis of the consequences, namely arrest, for obstruction if he continued.   Eventually after two further police officers arrived,  one  of  the  police  officers  got  in  the  back  of  the  vehicle  and Mr Makiha was handcuffed inside the vehicle with the assistance of other officers.  He then got out without difficulty and the vehicle was seized.

[2] Police v Makiha DC Tauranga CRI-2012-070-5758, 18 February 2013 at [5].

[4]      As a consequence, the District Court Judge held that the elements of the offence had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  So far as sentence is concerned, the District Court Judge convicted Mr Makiha and ordered him to come up for sentence if called upon within nine months.

[5]      The notice of appeal against conviction and sentence gives grounds for the

appeal as “unresolved issues”.  No submissions have been filed.

[6]      Mr Makiha was in Court before me for just over half an hour.   He was unfailingly courteous, dignified and clearly doing his best to assist me to consider

the issues in his case.  However, he also said that he was confused.  He handed to me

over the course of his submissions a number of documents.   Some related to an appeal  against  conviction  for  wilful  trespass  which  Priestley  J  determined  on

19 March 2013.[3]   Priestley J dismissed the appeal and subsequently refused leave to

appeal to the Court of Appeal.  I took it that Mr Makiha’s disquiet with the way in which the wilful trespass charges were dealt with are part of the “unresolved issues”.

[3] Makiha v Police HC Rotorua CRI-2012-470-45, 19 March 2013.

[7]      Mr Makiha was also concerned that the case before me was initially listed for call in the Tauranga District Court on 15 April 2013.  He was confused as to why it was now being called in the High Court today.  I repeatedly offered to adjourn this hearing if he was contending that he has been taken by surprise.  Mr Makiha did not want to have an adjournment.   It seems that he is particularly concerned as to whether  he  was  here  to  represent  Henry  Soloman  Makiha  or  Henry  Solomon Makiha.  The impression I got is that Mr Makiha considers the separate names to confer separate identities which he as Henry Makiha can represent.  This inference is reinforced by a business card which Mr Makiha gave me in which he is described as Henry Makiha and then:

LAWYER – MEDIATOR AMBASSADOR FOR NEW ZEALAND

[8]      Mr Makiha also, helpfully, referred to his current mental health state and gave me documents from Work and Income, including work capacity medical certificates.

[9]      At one point, Mr Makiha submitted to me that it would be unwise for the appeal hearing today to proceed because there are no witnesses present to give evidence.  He accepted, with his usual courtesy, my explanation that witnesses do not normally appear at appeal hearings.   I note the impression that Mr Makiha was unconvinced.

[10]   In the event, Mr Makiha did not address directly the reasons for his dissatisfaction with the decision of Judge Harding.

[11]     Having reviewed the file, and having heard Mr Makiha, I can see no basis for overturning the decision of the District Court Judge.  The transcript of evidence is entirely consistent with the view reached by the District Court Judge.

[12]     My distinct impression is that Mr Makiha does have unresolved issues, as he puts it, with the Justice system.  One of them is that he and his wife no longer have the motor vehicle concerned.   But those concerns cannot affect the validity of the

conviction and the sentence. The appeal is dismissed.

Brewer J